necessity is ever allowable when speaking of the will, we might say that God is necessarily holy and just and true in all his volitions and actions-yet such a use of the term would be obviously improper, if anything more were meant than perfect and immutable certainty to do right.

Every one is familiar with the fact that the influence of motives, i. e. "reasons, conceptions or views in the mind," depends, to a great extent, upon the temper or frame of the mind and nothing is more common than for men to regulate, moderate, and by long practice to gain the mastery over perverse tempers and inclinations. If, for example, the temper of the soul be toward the indulgence of hatred or malice against a neighbor in any given case, a very small and trifling 66 reason or conception" of wrong received, will lead to violence and even to murder-because "the reason," in that frame of the soul, appears very strong. But to another person, and, indeed, to the same man in other states or frames of the mind, the "reason," and of course the act, will seem perfectly contemptible, and he will be amazed at his own folly. Now, as man is responsible for the frame or temper of his soul, which often makes "the worse appear the better reason," so is he responsible for the strength or "controlling power" of the "conception" or motive which persuaded him to commit any crime-say murder, as in the case supposed.

But, replies the Arminian, does not this doctrine suppose necessity, i. e. that man acts without freedom? Certainly not. It supposes the man to be a rational, intelligent being, liable, indeed, to the influence of bad frames, habits or tempers of mind. It further supposes, not that he always acts under the impulse of "reasons "which are really the wisest and best, but he acts from those motives which at the moment impress him as the best and most fitting under all the circumstances. In a very short time, indeed, he may correct his error and curse his folly, because the frame or temper of his mind having changed, "the reason and conception," i. e.

the motive, loses its persuasive power. But, as these frames, habits or tempers of the mind form the ground-work of the intentions, they, to a great extent, make the act what it is in morals.

We agree with Fletcher, therefore, that to talk of a necessitated will or choice, in the sense of co-action, is to talk nonsense. Such a use of the terms is absurd-just as it would be to talk of logical affections, or a round square, or a dark light, or a loving hatred, or any other absurd collocation of terms. A man may be necessitated to a bodily action against his will - but the will itself is of its own nature always free, and the motives, i. e. "the reasons or conceptions" which lead to choice, are essential to the rational nature of the mind-without them it is neither sane nor morally responsible. And the strength of these motives is very much, in any given case, what a man makes it.

our nature.

But here the inquiry may arise: How far is the Divine Being concerned in original depravity and the acts which flow from it? No Calvinist teaches that God infuses sin into As a just punishment of the original fall of our first parents, man has lost original righteousness—and the consequence, viz. depravity of nature, invariably follows. This was true of Adam, and is true of his posterity—as like produces like. And as regards the sinful actions - say of the murderer or adulterer, Wesley makes the following distinctions: "God supplies such a wicked person with the power to act, which he cannot have but from God; he does this knowing what he (the murderer) is about to do. God, therefore, produces the action which is sinful. It is his work and his will (for he works nothing but what he wills), and yet the sinfulness of the act is neither his work nor will."* Calvinists take no stronger ground than this.

And then, as regards those frames, tempers and habits of the soul, which are the fruits of original depravity—in an*Original Sin, part 3, sec. 7.

swer to Dr. John Taylor's inquiry-"Can those propensities be sinful, which are neither caused nor consented to by me?" Wesley replies: "Spite, envy, and those other passions and tempers which are manifestly discernible even in little children, are certainly not virtuous, not morally good. And these exist before they are consented to, &c. 'Tempers contrary to the nature and law of God are natural,' i. e. inherited as part of our nature. These tempers do exist in us antecedent to our choice." "Actual sins," adds Wesley, " may proceed from a corrupt nature, and yet not be unavoidable. But if actions contrary to the nature of God were unavoidable, it would not follow that they were innocent.” * In these instances, Mr. Wesley was refuting the doctrines of that celebrated Pelagian, Taylor of Norwich, who bitterly denied original sin. This fact accounts for these and similar statements from his pen. Messrs. Simpson and Foster would do well to take a few lessons from him on that topic. They would thus discover that they agree much more closely with the Pelagian Taylor than with Mr. Wesley. Far from him be such sentiments as the following: "Neither are they to blame for this, because it was entirely without their consent. They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for that." 't Mr. W. refutes with great force of logic, the same sentiment expressed by Taylor, in pretty much the same words! Whatever may have been his errors, Wesley could say with David and others' Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." “The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be." "And we (Christians) were by nature children of wrath, even as others." This is not the language of men who taught "They were born corrupt, and therefore could not be guilty!"

These are strange developments in Arminian theology. *Misc. Works, vol. ii. p. 278.

† Objections to Calvinism, p. 166.

The system appears to be passing into the frozen regions of Pelagianism. The scraps of sound doctrine which at first adhered to it, and which, like salt, for a time preserved the mass from putrefaction, are becoming more and more unpalatable to the leaders. If they continue thus to "walk in the counsel" of Pelagians, and "stand in the way" of such errorists as Taylor of Norwich, they may soon be prepared to "sit down" with scorners such as Belsham, Priestley, et id genus omne. But we hope better things of Arminian Methodism, though we thus speak.

LETTER V.

FOREKNOWLEDGE-PREDESTINATION.

REV. SIR-The volume which your Book Concern has published and which you have recommended as "very valuable," ," "of great merit," &c. occupies more than a hundred pages with the subject of "eternal decrees," "election and reprobation." The views of Presbyterians are caricatured as follows: "The doctrine is, that God decreed"-"in the sense of originator, author and cause". "whatsoever comes to pass"-"each particular sin of every man." "Murder, robbery, blasphemy, &c."-" they could no more avoid these crimes, than resist the fiat of Omnipotence"-"their creation was in order to their sins.” * We have selected these items as furnishing a comparatively mild statement of our views, as Messrs. Simpson and Foster understand them.

The quotations you profess to make from certain authors, in order to fasten upon our church this and similar blasphemy, have already been exposed in part; and, in general, are much in the style of your favorite tract: "Dialogue between a Predestinarian and his friend." As a minute examination *Objections to Calvinism, p. 31.

of the extracts professedly given by Wesley, the author of that tract, will be found in the Appendix, we refer the reader to it, for fair specimens of Arminian accuracy and reliableness in matters of this sort.

The great theological work of Calvin, "the Institutes," has always been one of the principal magazines whence have been drawn these weapons of Arminian warfare. Yet in publishing this work, our Board of Publication, as we have shown, make several distinct exceptions to his views, especially on Reprobation. Even admitting, therefore, what is far from the truth, that Calvin's views are correctly stated by our Arminian brethren, how absurd in them to employ hundreds of pages in contending with such "a man of straw!" If any body could be found in any church under heaven, willing to father the sentiments which the Bishop charges upon us, Mr. Foster's book might possibly be of some use in that particular quarter! But, as the matter now stands, every well informed Presbyterian will feel only amazement, that so much. good paper and ink have been worse than wasted in battling with a pure figment. We repeat, the Supralapsarian theory, grossly caricatured as it is in these "Objections to Calvinism," is not the scheme of doctrine held by the Presbyterian church. It cannot be questioned that Turretine, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and a host of other Calvinists, have always been admitted, even by Arminians, to be men of the first order of genius. And they all agree that such representations of our doctrines as we have quoted from your "Objections," are calumnies-that "God is not, and cannot be, the author of sin ;" and they express with Calvin their "deep abhorrence of such blasphemy."* No wonder, therefore, that in attempting to fasten such blasphemous sentiments upon Presbyterians, the Rev. R. S. Foster finds "great confusion, perplexity and contradiction" in the Calvinistic doctrine; but he humbly hopes it will not be charged to his * Calvin's Letter to Bullinger, January, 1552.